The U.S.: Always Making Trouble For China

[ASAT]

Gady Epstein (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=gady+and+epstein&aname=Gady+Epstein), 06.18.09, 06:00 PM EDT
A Chinese commentator says his country needs to stand up stronger to the West.

.http://images.forbes.com/media/columnists/gadyepstein_170x170.jpg
Gady Epstein
http://images.forbes.com/media/2009/02/23/0223_beijing-dispatch_170x170.jpg (http://search.forbes.com/search/storyTypeSearch?storyType=Beijing+DIspatch)
Read All Beijing Dispatch Stories (http://search.forbes.com/search/storyTypeSearch?storyType=Beijing+DIspatch&boxes=custom)

This week we're turning the tables at Beijing Dispatch: Instead of offering the usual foreign-correspondent musings about China, Forbes invited an outspoken Chinese essayist to take a few shots at the U.S. and the rest of the West.

Wang Xiaodong, 53, is one of the co-authors of Unhappy China, a controversial nationalist (Wang prefers "patriotic") tome that seeks to prod the nation into a much more aggressive posture in international relations. Unhappy China has received some harsh reviews from China's media and intellectual elite but has also found a big audience, selling 800,000 non-pirated copies since it hit shelves in March.

Wang, a researcher at the Communist Youth League-affiliated China Youth and Children Research Center, urges that China strengthen its military and stand up to the U.S. His 90-minute conversation with Forbes began and ended on natural resources, as Wang zeroed in on the Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=RIO)'s ( RIO (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=RIO) - news (http://search.forbes.com/search/CompanyNewsSearch?ticker=RIO)- people (http://people.forbes.com/search?ticker=RIO)) scuttling this month of Chinalco's $19.5 billion deal to increase its minority stake in Rio to 18%. Wang claims that Rio struck a much worse pact financially--with BHP Billiton (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=BBL) ( BBL (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=BBL) - news (http://search.forbes.com/search/CompanyNewsSearch?ticker=BBL)- people (http://people.forbes.com/search?ticker=BBL))--because the West didn't want to do business with China; regardless of whether that is true, it illustrates the very real gripe among many Chinese that Western nations aren't playing fair (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/12/china-rio-bhp-markets-commodities-revenge.html).

Forbes: Since the change of U.S. administrations, engagement between the U.S. and China hasn't slowed down on issues such as North Korea (http://topics.forbes.com/North%20Korea), climate change (http://topics.forbes.com/climate%20change), the currency and the global economic crisis.

Wang Xiaodong: We absolutely have common interests and points of conflict. For example, on the North Korea issue the Chinese government has released a really tough statement. China has offered them many things and has received little appreciation from them. But on the other hand, it's not a bad thing for China that North Korea is also making trouble for the U.S.

Because the U.S. and other Western countries are always making trouble for China. Rio Tinto would rather make a deal with another company at a price that's one-tenth of what the Chinese company offered. I think this just reflects the hostility of Western countries to China. If it's just a business deal, there's no reason to sell someone a thing worth 100 yuan for 10 yuan. [Note: Rio and BHP agreed on a joint venture that is not directly comparable, but has been criticized as potentially anti-competitive (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/*******/2009/06/09/2009-06-09T072337Z_01_T117189_RTRIDST_0_JAPAN-STEEL-UPDATE-1.html).]

So why do you think the deal fell apart?

The Western countries want to curb China. They don't want China to grab more resources.

What about on the other side, with the Coke-Huiyuan deal (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/coke-huiyuan-takeover-markets-equity-china.html)?

That's really just stupid revenge . I don't think it's a big deal whether Coke buys Huiyuan. It's just a soft drink. No need to fuss over it.
[B]Your book describes how China should be more aggressive in going out in the world to get more resources. Some critics suggest that may invite conflicts with other countries over resources. Do you think that's a fair characterization?

Whether or not this leads to international conflicts doesn't just depend on our side but also on the attitude of the West. The truth facing China now is that we are developing very quickly, so we need more resources. We still use much fewer resources than the West on a per-capita basis. So we have the right to access more resources. This is just and proper. If other countries decline to give us resources and this leads to conflicts, then from a moral standpoint, we are not responsible for it.

China has tried to present itself as a country of peaceful rise. Are you suggesting something different?

I haven't said that China should change the current strategy of peaceful rise, but in the future, China will definitely need a powerful army. I don't think China's peaceful rise can be guaranteed without strong military power.
Recently, Premier Wen Jiabao publicly expressed concerns (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/china-debt-fed-business-beijing-dispatch.html) about the value of China's U.S. dollar holdings and the long-term value of the dollar. Do you share those concerns?

I also worry about that. I think if the U.S. is not so hostile to China, then why not sell China some technology to pay for their debts? But the U.S. doesn't even agree to sell low-level technology. It just asks for money from us. Americans need to seriously reconsider this. Since we need to cooperate with each other in the world, you'd better offer something as well. You can't just ask for money and offer nothing.

You've also talked about how China needs to develop its military in preparation for conflict. Why should the U.S. help you do that?

This depends on the Western countries. Why can't the U.S. and China cooperate with each other and share resources? That way, there won't be any conflicts. Actually, frankly speaking, the U.S. and other Western countries will have to accept reality, which is that they will have to share resources with China. If they are not willing to do so, the Earth will be finished.

Link:http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/china-wang-xiaodong-rio-tinto-bhp-beijing-dispatch.html

I couldn't agree with this guy more , brilliant;-)

[Blue_0]

A. There is no way we are selling China our tech, especially our military tech. There are two good reasons for this. The first is China has no respect for our patents, anything we sell China is gone for good. The second is China is far from harmless, China's occupation of Tibet and sections of India clearly show imperialistic and warlike intent.

B. Yes, the rest of the world is purposely containing China's rise. The question China needs to ask yourself is why does the west decide to hold China back, while assisting India in any way it can? It should be obvious that China is a real threat to the world. If China desires not to be viewed as a threat, perhaps China should reevaluate its actions on the world stage. China can try to deny this, but the West is not a monolithic power block, for all of us individual nation states to reach agreement on anything is rather exceptional.

C. China does not have the right for more resources. Using such language implies China feels entitled to something that someone else owns. Australia has a right to do whatever it wants with its ore. It can sell China ore if it wants. It can sell China the mine that makes the ore if it wants. It can not sell China the mine. At the end of the day, Australia's resources are Australia's to decide what to do or not do with. It is the expression of attitudes like this that lead us to deliberatily keep China weak.

-- Bluelight

[Jiggy]

A. There is no way we are selling China our tech, especially our military tech. There are two good reasons for this. The first is China has no respect for our patents, anything we sell China is gone for good. The second is China is far from harmless, China's occupation of Tibet and sections of India clearly show imperialistic and warlike intent.

B. Yes, the rest of the world is purposely containing China's rise. The question China needs to ask yourself is why does the west decide to hold China back, while assisting India in any way it can? It should be obvious that China is a real threat to the world. If China desires not to be viewed as a threat, perhaps China should reevaluate its actions on the world stage. China can try to deny this, but the West is not a monolithic power block, for all of us individual nation states to reach agreement on anything is rather exceptional.

C. China does not have the right for more resources. Using such language implies China feels entitled to something that someone else owns. Australia has a right to do whatever it wants with its ore. It can sell China ore if it wants. It can sell China the mine that makes the ore if it wants. It can not sell China the mine. At the end of the day, Australia's resources are Australia's to decide what to do or not do with. It is the expression of attitudes like this that lead us to deliberatily keep China weak.

-- Bluelight

pretty much.

for a major power they sure do cry alot.

/thread.

[Holmes85]

Gady Epstein (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=gady+and+epstein&aname=Gady+Epstein), 06.18.09, 06:00 PM EDT



Recently, Premier Wen Jiabao publicly expressed concerns (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/china-debt-fed-business-beijing-dispatch.html) about the value of China's U.S. dollar holdings and the long-term value of the dollar. Do you share those concerns?

I also worry about that. I think if the U.S. is not so hostile to China, then why not sell China some technology to pay for their debts? But the U.S. doesn't even agree to sell low-level technology. It just asks for money from us. Americans need to seriously reconsider this. Since we need to cooperate with each other in the world, you'd better offer something as well. You can't just ask for money and offer nothing.



I couldn't agree with this guy more , brilliant;-)


The Chinese government has already stolen quite a few U.S. secrets and technology over the years from the U.S. government and American industries. I think it would be safe to say that those things should pay off a large chunk of our debt owed the Chinese government. (However, I'm only building this off of what I've been reading from the newspapers over the past few years)

Though I do agree that we need to build a better relationship with China.

[Ordie]

Wang Xiaodong and other nationalist are more dangerous to China than any external threat can provide. His publications only fan the flames of nationalist rehtoric that places the Chinese government in a compromising position to kowtow to public pressure everytime, regardless of pragmatic international relations or policy options.

The political survival of the CCP depends on beng attentive to the population who feel so strongly about an issue or an event. Nationalist sentiment makes it difficult for the CCP not to react by ultimatums that they might have to deliver on.

[Holmes85]

Wang Xiaodong and other nationalist are more dangerous to China than any external threat can provide. His publications only fan the flames of nationalist rehtoric that places the Chinese government in a compromising position to kowtow to public pressure everytime, regardless of pragmatic international relations or policy options.

The political survival of the CCP depends on beng attentive to the population who feel so strongly about an issue or an event. Nationalist sentiment makes it difficult for the CCP not to react by ultimatums that they might have to deliver on.

So basically what this newspaper is doing right now is dangerous and not really beneficial, right?

[Ordie]

So basically what this newspaper is doing right now is dangerous and not really beneficial, right?

It doesn't help.

However, I think the US has aided China in becoming a global responsible stakeholder in many ways. More specifically in the area of non-proliferation and encouraging the present Taiwan-China reproachment.

I expect both China and US to jointly craft and present a resolution on climate change at the UN Conference in Denmark later this year.

[Holmes85]

I expect both China and US to jointly craft and present a resolution on climate change at the UN Conference in Denmark later this year.


Finally, something we can work together on.:)

[Noble713]

You've also talked about how China needs to develop its military in preparation for conflict. Why should the U.S. help you do that?

This depends on the Western countries. Why can't the U.S. and China cooperate with each other and share resources? That way, there won't be any conflicts.

I had a similar idea. An honest, trustworthy partnership between the two could lead to a long-term period of neo-Colonial domination by combining a few key elements: Chinese manpower, Chinese ruthlessness, US military institutional knowledge, and US technology.

Use the unending masses of young, single Chinese men as cheap occupation troops and construction laborers in Africa. US engineers show them how to resource-rape the continent (again) in the most efficient manner. A touch of Communist Party brutality will keep the locals in line. The goods get shipped back to the US/China with escorts from the US Navy, which rules the seas. The Navy and Air Force is also responsible for the logistical supply of the otherwise-stranded Chinese garrison forces. I wouldn't share our military tech with the Chinese, as it is what keeps us one step ahead of them and keeps us in the game. Otherwise they could just produce a sufficiently capable blue water navy and cut us out of the loop. I think it would be so expensive for them as to be a big waste: we've got a 60-year head start on building and using aircraft carriers and large amphibious task forces. Recovering that kind of lost ground isn't easy.

I don't think it would work though: I figure both sides would be too busy trying to stab each other in the back for a few more drops of oil or shipments of ore.

[Blue_0]

I don't think it would work though: I figure both sides would be too busy trying to stab each other in the back for a few more drops of oil or shipments of ore.

I disagree with you. I would argue that we would get along very well in the short term. In the long term it would be China's dissatisfaction with us taking a disproportion of the resources per population that would break things up, especially with the endless rising demand in China.

However, this could be counteracted, we could form multiple partnerships. For example, using Sudanese military forces in some areas to dominate the locals, Chinese in others, and whatever armed mob is in ascendancy at the moment in yet others. That way the Chinese will have to compete and making themselves more attractive then other more local elements.

[GBob]

The book has became a joke of today in China and the world, especially through the eyes of "educaated" Chinese and American. Extreme nationalism comes up whenever the ruling of the country's in deep crisis. it can definitely make people forget the pain and the miserable reality in their lives for the time being, but it never solves the problems.

By the way, the co-author and publisher of the book "Unhappy China", Zhang Xiaobo, the top leader of the ultra-exclusive Chinese for the name of nationalism, is now being in the process of immigration to Canada.